Grounds for Objection - Evidence

Objections may include the following:

Relevance

Only relevant evidence is admissible. Relevant means the evidence

proves or tends to prove a fact that is in dispute. For example, in a
case involving a collision of two motor vehicles, the speed that the
vehicles were travelling would probably be relevant, but what the
drivers ate for breakfast would probably be irrelevant.

All irrelevant material is inadmissible. This is an over-riding principle

that applies to all evidence put before the court.

However, the mere fact that evidence is relevant does not make it
automatically admissible. The application of the other rules of evidence
used in the mock trial competition may admissible. For example if the
Rule in Brown v Dunn is breached.

Opinion

This rule relates to conclusions or views formed by witnesses based on

facts which they have observed. Opinions may not be given in
evidence (if relevant) For example, the observation by a witness that
another person was red in the face and shaking his fists would be
admissible, but the conclusion or opinion that the person was very
upset or was angry with him would not be admissible.

The exception to this rule is where opinion evidence is given by witness

who is an expert in the field to which the opinion relates. Expert in this
context means someone who has special expertise in a field, whether
from qualifications or formal training, or from experience in that field.
Before the opinion is given in evidence, the previous evidence given by
that witness must qualify him or her as an expert in the field to which
the opinion relates. This is done by leading evidence from him or her
about his or her qualifications, experience and so on.

Hearsay

Hearsay is the statement by a witness of what he or she heard

someone else say. Subject to the exceptions set out below, such
evidence is inadmissible as to the truth of what the other person said.

For example, the statement by a witness, "Mrs Smith told me she saw
Mr Simpson driving the car", is not admissible to prove that Mr
Simpson was in fact driving the car. It is only admissible as evidence
that Mrs Smith said it if that fact is relevant.

The reasons for the hearsay rule are:

(i) Hearsay is not the best evidence - Mrs Smith should give her
own account to the court on oath.

(ii) It is second-hand evidence which means that it may have

changed in the re-telling.

(iii) There is no opportunity to cross-examine the person who

made the comment or observation to test his or her competence
or credibility. For example, it may be that Mrs Smith was not
wearing her glasses at the time, or had her view obstructed or
had some reason to make up a story about Mr Simpson.

(iv) Hearsay evidence is easy to concoct and very difficult to

disprove.

Exceptions to the hearsay rule:

(i) When the statement is made in the "heat of the moment" and
forms part of the overall picture of what occurred.

(ii) When the statement is made by one of the parties in the

proceedings and is a statement against that party's interests, for
example, an admission.

(iii) When the relevance of the contents of the statement is not to

establish the truth of the statement but only the fact that the
statement was made.

Character Evidence

Evidence of bad character by a defendant may not be led by the

prosecution/plaintiff. Evidence of good character may be led by either
party, but only if it is relevant. If the defendant raises his or her good
character or attacks the character of a prosecution/plaintiff witness,
the prosecution/plaintiff may cross-examine the defendant on his or
her bad character.

Direct Speech

Conversations which are significant should be related by the witness in

direct speech. That is, the conversation should be recited as it occurred
and not summarised by the witness.
The witnesses statements should still comply with the form in which
the statements are made.

For example, "Brian said me, "Could you please drive? I think I have
had too much to drink" is the proper way to give evidence, not "Brian
asked me to drive because he had had too much to drink."

Grounds for Objections - Procedural

Objections may be lodged only on the following procedural

grounds:

Leading or Double Questions

A leading question is one in which the form of the question suggests

the answer. For example, "Was the car blue?"

Double or multiple questions are objectionable because they cannot

necessarily be answered with a single answer. For example,the answer
to the first part of the question might be "yes" while the answer to the
second part of the question might be "no".

Failure to comply with the Rule in Browne v Dunn

The rule in Browne v Dunn requires, that unless prior notice has been
given of a cross examiner's intention to rely on evidence contradictory
to that given by the witness being cross-examined, the cross examiner
must put to the witness the nature of the contradictory evidence. A
further explanation of this rule is explained in the common law and is
found under General Precedents.

Failure to comply with this rule and an objection to

evidence.

Once an objection has been lodged, and points awarded if the

objection is made correctly, the remainder of the evidence upon which
the party relies is allowed to continue to completion, although strictly
under this rule it should be disallowed.

Harassing or arguing with witnesses

Barristers may lodge an objection if opposing Counsel is harassing or

arguing with a witness. This usually occurs during cross examination.